I finally got around to reading and finishing John Frame’s interpretation of Christian apologist and theologian Cornelius Van Til. This is probably long overdue given how long my interests is with Presuppositional apologetics and also having read so much of Frame’s works daily in my life for the last couple of years. I must say that I probably appreciated this work in the current place in my life than I would have appreciated it ten years ago. I do not always agree with John Frame being myself more in line with Greg Bahnsen’s approach towards apologetics but I have always found that even when I disagree with Frame he certainly gives much fuel for thought and as a result with interacting with his writings I have become more nuanced and achieved a better synthesis of what to believe.

Frame is a bit more critical of Cornelius Van Til the father of Presuppositional apologetics than most of Van Til’s disciples and readers will see that in the book. While Frame does not always agree with Van Til nevertheless he still sees himself as a Presuppositionalist. That means that at times Frame defends the methodology of Presuppositional apologetics from bad criticisms and attacks and when he does he does it well. A great example of Frame’s critique of critiques against Van Til and Presuppositionalism can be seen in appendix A found in the end of the book titled “Van Til and the Ligonier Apologetic” in which Frame responds to RC Sproul, John Grestner and Arthur Lindsley’s book titled Classical Apologetics. Even those who disagree with Van Til, Presuppositional apologetics and John Frame has a lot to benefit from reading Frame in general and this book in particular.

The book is divided into six parts. Part one is titled “Introductory Considerations” which has a chapter on Frame’s approach to Van Til with two more chapters on Van Til’s life and character and Van Til’s place in history. The last two chapters mentioned really puts Van Til’s contribution and theology in perspective. I think they are helpful for those who do not know Van Til to read chapters two and three in the book. Part two is on the metaphysics of knowledge and is probably the longest section of the book. It covers a lot of significant theological topics and subjects in the teaching of Van Til that he is known for (the role of God in our knowledge, God’s revelation and presuppositions, etc). Part three is on the ethics of knowledge while part four looks at Van Til’s take on the arguments for Christianity given throughout church history. In part five Frame looks at Van Til as a critic while part six is the conclusion that has a chapter on Van Til’s successors and the future of Van Til’s teachings.

For those who are familiar with Greg Bahnsen’s large work on Van Til’s apologetics (which is also an amazing work) one might be tempted to ask why get Frame’s work on Van Til. I think this work by John Frame on Van Til is still worthwhile since it looks at other topics and theological issues that Bahnsen didn’t spend as much time on: Van Til and the Trinity, a whole chapter on common grace, etc. The paragraphs below are on some of those chapters in the book that I found interesting and helpful; of course given the depth and length of the book not everything can be covered.

I thought chapter seven stood out and made a helpful contribution in the discussion about analogical knowledge. This rather has a history of heated discussion between those who taught at Westminster Seminary and Gordon Clark and his followers. Frame did a good job defining what Van Til meant by analogy which remain so elusive for many, both friends and critics of Van Til. Frame gives us a very helpful summary of the ecclesiastical exchange during the Van Til/Gordon Clark controversy; Frame even corrected my assumption that Clark got kicked out of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church with his ordination revoked, although later Gordon Clark did leave the denomination.

I also enjoyed reading Frame’s chapter on common grace. Here he does a good job not only analyzing Van Til’s theology of common grace but also critiquing two books that was critical of Van Til’s view of common grace. Frame’s discussion of Gary North’s rejection of Van Til’s formulation of common grace also made me see how eschatology plays a role in one’s understanding of how common grace works. Clearly North with his postmillennialism saw common grace increasing in the course of history since there is much progress with the Gospel being preached and forming Christian civilizations while Van Til’s amillennialism saw common grace diminishing with the course of history given the fact that people and society.

I thought at times Frame was much more sympathetic towards certain positions of Classical Apologetics more than I would personally like. But one thing I am glad that Frame is wrong on is on page 389 in the book in which Frame said that he sense interests in Van Til has declined since Van Til’s death in 1987; on the contrary, because of God’s providence presuppositional apologetics has grown beyond what Frame and others would have been able to imagine in 1995 when Frame wrote this book; and with the growth of interests with Presuppositional apologetics, interests in Van Til the theologian and the man himself has grown.